Monday, December 31, 2012

While Governor Huntsman was not my favorite to land the rEpublican nomination in 2012 (Ron Paul was) looking back he would have made a formidable candidate in the effort to unseat President Obama. Instead the party nominated Mittens the Flip Flopper Romney and we all know the results of that brilliant move to pacify the more (false) conservatives in the rEpublican Oligarchical power structure. Unless the party wakes up and gets some sense it will pay a lasting price as America, including America's real conservatives and libertarians move on to a new era. Jon Huntsman should figure predominately in a new future for the rEpublican party.

The Telegraph - The Republican Party is leaderless and "devoid of a soul" but can rebuild in the wake of its election defeat if it embraces its history of supporting limited government, Jon Huntsman has said.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the former Utah governor and leading Republican moderate said the party must accept "a strong dose of libertarianism" on social issues and allow state governments to move ahead with gay marriage.

Offering his prescription for the party's renewal, Mr Huntsman said the early stages of the Republican presidential primaries rewarded extreme conservatives rather than "long-term competitive candidates" who could effectively take on the Democrats.

Barack Obama appointed the Mandarin-speaking 52-year-old US Ambassador to China in 2009, a decision the newly-elected President hoped would keep Mr Huntsman out of this year's election.

Obama campaign aides openly acknowledged that they believed the two-term governor would be a difficult general election opponent and possibly the most dangerous Republican in the field.

He returned from Beijing in 2011 to media fanfare but his presidential bid collapsed in the early stages as he failed to connect with the conservatives that make up the Republican primary electorate.

Mr Huntsman said that his work for a Democrat president, his belief in climate change and his relatively liberal attitude on gay rights had obscured his conservative stances on budgets, gun control and abortion.

"You get caught up in a lot of the issues on which you're easily dismissed without people giving you proper consideration," he said.

However, the scale of Mitt Romney's defeat in November has left the party reeling and may create a fresh opening for the socially-moderate but fiscally-conservative ideas Mr Huntsman espoused in the primary.

"The party right now is a holding company that's devoid of a soul and it will be filled up with ideas over time and leaders will take their proper place," he said.

Mr Huntsman urged the party to "reflect a little bit on our winning chapters" and face up to a demographic reality where white conservatives represent a shrinking portion of the electorate.

"We can't be known as a party that's fear-based and doesn't believe in math," he said. "In the end it will come down to a party that believes in opportunity for all our people, economic competitiveness and a strong dose of libertarianism."

He said he "absolutely" supported individual states being allowed to implement gay marriage, saying that Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, believed that "equality under the law is an American value".

Mr Huntsman did not rule out a second presidential run in 2016 but said he was not spending his time "looking for some opening that we can fit in". {Continue Reading}

I'm still thinking the Libertarian Party is maybe the best way for America Ultimately. However, given the lock the dEmocrat and rEpublican party has had on American electoral success perhaps it makes a lot more sense to support a candidate in the rEpublican party that can win and then lead America in the direction that makes both social sense and fiscal sense. Jon Huntsman could very well be that individual.

This is just a guess but I'm thinking I just might be the only fiscal conservative that understands what the President is saying. But then again there aren't any real fiscal conservatives in the nation's capital these days anyway. I find myself more and more each and every day wondering exactly what has happened to the conservatives of old. You know, the William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Gerald Ford types. The types that actually understood what conservatism (in these days aka classical liberalism) really means as well as recognizing that community and government actually can play a positive role while at the same time remaining as limited as reasonably possible.

Preparing for inevitable criticism from the false conservatives, as well as likely skepticism and taunts from the partisan liberal progressives I can only respond by saying... "Nuts". Or to put it another way "frankly I my dear I don't give a damn." Yeah, I know I'm cribbing.But when the quote makes sense I say use em.

President Obama may be many things I do not approve of politically. However, when you are right you are right. In my view both the rEpublican and dEmocrat parties bear responsibility for the eleventh hour drama surrounding the political fiscal cliff. And yes, it is true IMNHO the rEpublicans have been the most intransigent. That aside I applaud the sentiment of the President. In reality the damn Congress and Senate ought to be in DC tonight working their tails off finding a compromise for the American People. The millions of individuals whom they have been elected to both represent as well insure that both the public welfare and responsive government is maintained. For the past 12 years they have failed miserably.

The Weekly Standard - President Barack Obama tipped his hand today during a speech at the White House ... about how he plans to spend this New Year's Eve.

"Democrats and Republicans in Congress have to get this done," Obama said, according to a rush transcript, referencing the ongoing "fiscal cliff" talks. "But they're not there yet. They are close, but they're not there yet. And one thing we can count on with respect to this Congress is that if there is even one second left before you have to do what you're supposed to do, they will use that last second."

Obama then veered into his New Year's Eve plans. "So as of this point, it looks like I'm going to be spending New Year's here in D.C.," he said. "You all are going to be hanging out in D.C. too."

It's not clear where else he'd go, though his family is currently vacationing in Hawaii.

"I can come to your house? Is that what you said?" the president said, playing off the friendly White House audience. "I don't want to spoil the party. But the -- the people who are with me here today, the people who are watching at home, they need our leaders in Congress to succeed. They need us -- they need us to all stay focused on them, not on politics, not on, you know, special interests. They need to be focused on families, students, grandmas, you know, folks who are out there working really, really hard, and are just looking for a fair shot."

Yes the President lapsed into the liberal narrative that plays well with middle America and the poor. Given the current rEpublican and Tea Party stance I can hardly blame the guy. The lot of false conservatives have actually turned many who have always supported limited government and fiscal responsibility against the rEpublican party. Perhaps it is time we all started to think outside the Oligarchical box we so willingly allowed ourselves to be herded into.

PS: Afterthoughts, The United States of America was created by great thinkers and politicians of the Age Enlightenment. Our great nation was built by the the generations immediately following.

Our founders made great compromises to achieve their vision of a nation under a limited government led by the governed. Today, two and a quarter centuries later we have politicians that can not only find workable compromise but do great dishonor to our founding principles.

But I suppose understanding this actually requires thinking beyond the rEpublican Tea Party myopic existence.

During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,900, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant.

Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked.

In any reasonable discussion of firearms control these stats need to be recognized and discussed. As much as the advocates of stricter and tightened gun control laws may not wish to acknowledge these facts they are relevant and therefore need to be included in the discussion. Which is not to say we should do nothing. By the same token the nation should not over react.

Friday, December 28, 2012

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy in which 20 innocent children lost their live to a sick and mentally unstable individual the subject of gun control has remained center stage.

This is understandable, and as it should be. The pursuit of finding improved methods to better identify unstable individuals and thereby keep firearms out of the hands of such individuals is a worthy pursuit.

As we consider how to deal with increasing societal violence we must find a happy medium that will both improve public safety and preserve our second amendment rights. It can be done, if both sides of the gun control debate will start listening to each other rather talking AT each other.

We have heard from the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, who has offered essentially the same solution as the organization did in 2007. Put armed police guards in every school in America. Not anything most suburban and rural Mom's and Dad's will be comfortable with.

Senator Dianne Feinstein will be introducing a bill in 2013 to strengthen gun control legislation. It is by no means perfect, and it leaves questions unanswered, yet it is something from which to build a bipartisan consensus. Assuming of course the goal is to effectively reduce the incidents of death by gun violence n America.

Here then is a summary of the bill Senator Feinstein will be introducing to the Senate in 2013.Rational Nation USA, in publishing the Senator's proposal is not making a statement either in support of or against the bill as outlined.

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms

Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept adetachable magazine and have one military characteristic

Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms
Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;

Type and serial number of the firearm;

Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

Certification from local law enforcement of identity and thatpossession would not violate State or local law; and

Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Not perfect, most certainly their are legitimate questions to be asked and needed answer to the same. What is important, at least IMNHO, is that we ask the questions and in the spirit of making things better (without violating our 2'nd amendment rights) we find a reasonable solution.

O' course Bill Cody didn't use a Glock, but he could have bought anything from a Gattling gun to one of the newly popular Mauser and Colt and Browning autoloading pistols every bit as deadly and some more than the plastic gun in the picture. Maybe he did, but I doubt it. Guns are much harder to come buy these days. I don't know how to make it harder unless we require licensing.

Shooting exhibitions were the most popular spectator sport before we learned to watch steroidal men beat each other half to death while we get drunk and cheer. I have it on good authority (my own)that the old showman wasn't death's blue eyed boy unless death is a Buffalo.

But all kidding aside, I have no cowboy origins or fantasies and I think the love of the power firearms convey is just plain old "will to power" humanity we inherited from the other apes. I think it's more that weapons have been restricted to the gentry in Europe for so many thousands of years, it seems natural to them as it seemed natural to change that for the colonials who damned well needed them to survive.

Looking at magazines from 50 or 60 or more years ago, gun ads were everywhere with images of boy scouts holding Ithaca 49 saddle guns, red shirted men in canvas canoes shooting ducks with shotguns and deer with rifles.
After bear? You're not going to want a single shot weapon really.

You know, that's still the real world for some people. In Australia crocodile hunters use spears and ropes. In Louisiana, Swamp Men use repeating rifles or pistols and they have a much higher life expectancy. I have a feeling outdoorsmen all over this huge and empty country fear legitimately that their lives are going to be controlled by people who have no clue and no care for them or their "obsolete" lives.

I hope that's not true, but in a country where boys don't grow up reading Stuart Edward White and Baden Powell and Hemingway and Faulkner and think Central Park is 'nature:' where people's first and only exposure to firearms is in lurid TV coverage of murders, I think it may become so -- with one size fits all laws and stereotypes about people of the "gun culture."

There's a difference between being part of a culture obsessed with anger and acting it out, where people love military looking vehicles and half believe in apocalypse movies with zombies in the streets and who build underground bunkers with booby traps -- a difference between Rambo and Daniel Boone and if I can use that prejudiced term "gun Culture" I think there are several.

And how often have we heard that we need gun control without any clue as to what that might constitute, about what has been done and what effects have been had? What gun owner, what sportsmen or women can fail to ponder what might be suggested next when nearly all the rhetoric not only paints them with the same bloody brush and the same, sometimes outrageously prejudicial and always wrong language? Sniper rifles, automatic weapons, cop killer bullets and of course everything from a slingshot ball up is "high velocity"

Sorry, I agree that the NRA is fond of playing word games and fallacies and fear mongering, but perhaps this is one of those times when we're nearly as bad and by looking at only one aspect of why people buy and use guns we're engineering the conclusion.

I'd like to know why there was a big surge of buying in 2011 and why it came from Democrats and women, while Republican males ownership has remained more steady in the last decade?

But I feel intimidated and drowned out by people who keep illustrating Nietzsche's observation that every word is a prejudice and don't know a Glock from a Glockenspiel.

Hardly anyone who spent his best years paddling remote lakes and rivers and spending weeks in the woods or ordinary afternoons hiking his own land likes to be described as an anachronism or a drug store cowboy because he liked having a rifle with him when a long, long way from anyone else and the same thing goes for Country Club sportsmen and professional target shooters or hunters or Biathlon contestants and if that kind of life dies, replaced by a Western clone of iron fisted Singapore in all its suffocating safety, something American will die and I want no part of that future.

No, I'm not against gun legislation because it's gun legislation or because I'm from the NRA and I think that's true of a great many people. I resent the constant equation. I just don't want more faith put in any more fake bans and trigger locks and waiting periods and arguments about "saturday night specials" and automatic weapons that aren't and all that stuff that did nothing whatsoever but provide false security.

I just don't have faith in the naive proposals, the lack of concrete plans based on concrete data and I'm against the state of mind that assumes everything is getting worse and worse and life is more dangerous than ever - where not only is one in a million too much but the price of civilization is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I've yet to hear anyone ask why Americans' private dreams seem to be military and apocalyptic and we see it in their Hummers and AK's and their shootouts. Buffalo Bill made a living with guns and guns were everywhere, but I've not heard of school shootings by him or Annie Oakley or anyone else back over a hundred years ago.

I wanna know what's changed, why everyone is afraid and I don't want to ban first and ask questions later pardner.

Certainly there are reasonable solutions that will address the concerns we all have over firearm safety and keeping firearms, to the greatest extent possible, out of the hands of the mentally unstable and criminals. Most Americans value the right to "keep and bear arms." At the same time it is admittedly hard to understand why any law abiding citizen needs an arsenal of semi automatic assault weapons with extended magazines for either 1) home protection or 2) hunting.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Two arguably great ancient world cultures. Reason and senatorial governance. Two cultures that yet today have influence on western thinking and philosophy. Three giants in the realm of philosophy arose from ancient Greece, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Rome, arguably the world's greatest empire was ultimately doomed to decline and ultimate collapse, primarily the result of self destructive behaviors. Fast forward to 2012. America, arguably (once) the freest, most prosperous, and influential nation in the modern world is facing decline, just as the great nation states of Greece and Rome before them. In fact if one looks to history they will see that history is replete with examples of nations that achieved the apex of influence and power, only to experience decline and be replaced by another rising influential power. Today America is at that crucial tipping point where we either will decline or rise to new heights. The choices we make now as a nation will determine either descent or a climb to new heights.

There is a war being fought today in America. An internal war between the ideological forces of the far left progressive movement and the far right right conservative movement. On a fiscal, social, military, foreign affairs, and most everything else there is little to no common ground or desire to compromise. It is winner take all or go down trying. The rhetoric and tactics employed by both sides is intentionally counter productive to finding consensus. Driving this insanity are the ones who have the most to gain by keeping the nation divided and at each others throats. In a single word they are, the oligarchs that control the world economy and stimulate the results that keep them in power.

Both the ideologues of the left and right are being used and manipulated by forces (the oligarchs) they choose to ignore and thus fail to understand. Simply put, those who hold the real power behind the throne(s) are playing the this country, as well as the remainder of the world like a fiddle. And we are falling for it. Without resistance.

There are multitudes of posts on conservative sites as well as progressive sites that serve to destroy, rather than to work to define common ground and determine the course most likely to result in success. But none of this apparently matters any longer as we are so busy working tearing things apart we haven't the time to build monuments to rational thinking and common sense. There doesn't seem to be any real desire to find common workable ground. Finding that solutions are evidently just too much work for Americans and their elected officials.

I am of a fiscal conservative and classical liberal mindset. I have strong libertarian social leanings, and I actually understand that compromise is what is often required to achieve a workable consensus so something of value gets done. It is evident that in today's winner take all political climate stalemate has become the accepted norm.

As mentioned earlier there are those unseen forces that have everything to gain by keeping Americans divided. They have everything to lose if we ever actually look beyond the simple and realize we have more in common than we have differences. Being primarily of the fiscal conservative/libertarian social mindset I must say I am as distraught by many who share my beliefs and their refusal to find compromise as I have been with the progressives who seek to tear all things conservative and libertarian asunder.

This nation is IMNHO at the crossroads. The choices we make now will affect us, our children, and grandchildren for years to come. We can go forward together, voicing our views, attempting to persuade those with a different view to change to our why of thinking, yet at the same time recognizing that compromise (from both sides) is necessary, and in fact desirable in finding and implementing workable solutions. This is lacking in both parties and in both movements (progressive and conservative) today.

Maybe it is too late. Maybe the nation has become so fractured the damage is irreparable I hope not.

We have overcome great obstacles as a nation in the past. There is no reason we cannot do so again. The divisiveness that has almost become a national trademark can only be overcome if we once again see ourselves as one nation. It is time. Lets start on a course that will restore our fiscal integrity, preserve the individual freedoms and liberty we all cherish, conservatives and liberals alike.

There is something that should be understood by understood by conservatives, President Obama presents no greater or lesser threat to America than GWB did before him. To understand this requires an understanding of concepts. Obama is not a communist, he is really no more socialist than others who came before him, he is no more fascist than GWB, and for those conservatives that have yet to catch up, he was elected President by a majority of the people. Just sorta, kinda, exactly like the founders intended. Now, get over it. There is work to be done. America needs solutions that ALL its people can buy into and support. In a nation the size of the USA, with our level of maturity (chronological anyway), and diversity requires the willingness to compromise. Both progressives and conservatives seem to have forgotten this.

Going off the grid for now. Everyone have a MerryChristmas, be thinking about how we can solve problem through dialog with one another.

Friday, December 21, 2012

'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,' LaPierre says. | Reuters

The NRA Solution to gun violence in our schools will either be met with scathing rebuke, or it will just be ignored. Must admit, it's not a novel or new idea, they floated it in 2007 as well. One I am fairly certain my sons and daughters-in-law, like millions of others will have a real issue with, again. Way to go NRA, really thinking outside the same box.

Politico - The National Rifle Association stunned Washington observers Friday when the group’s CEO announced a plan to install armed guards at every school in the country — its response to the Connecticut shooting last week that left 20 children dead.

Wayne LaPierre called the idea the National School Shield program, which would rely on local police forces. It will be led by former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.).

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said. “Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?”

LaPierre acknowledged police budgets across the country are stretched and urged Congress to “appropriate whatever is necessary” to fund the program. He said retired police and military could also be tapped to serve in the program, which he wants enacted in January.

“We can deploy them to protect our kids now,” he said. “We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.”

During the lengthy press conference, LaPierre also blamed the media and video game industry for glorifying violence.

He did not take any questions from the press.

This is not the first time the NRA has pushed the idea of armed guards at schools. LaPierre said that the media “called me crazy” when he suggested the idea after the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007.

Richard Feldman, former NRA lobbyist and president of the Independent Firearms Owners Association, said that he supports the NRA’s position, but that it will be criticized because of the messenger.

“The pushback is because it’s the NRA saying it, not what the NRA said,” Feldman said. {Read More}

Somehow having armed guards in public schools with small children somehow just seem to feel right. I can't quite put my finger on it as it might just to what the NRA says it will do. Anybody like to help me out here?

Michael Moore, the multimillionaire fat ass that made all his money using the American capitalist system while discouraging America at every turn and opportunity is ONCE again putting his full complete idiocy on display. The man is a sorry excuse of a human and IMNHO a total waste of good oxygen.

Moore, weighing in on guns manages to bring race into the discussion. This was inevitable I suppose as it comes from the completely looney fire breathing progressive left, which Moore without a doubt personifies. What a piece of work this idiot is. Thankfully he doesn't represent the entire liberal population.

The Daily Caller - Friday night, on the heels of last week’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., the left-leaning Current TV is planning to air progressive filmmaker Michael Moore’s ten-year-old Columbine documentary “Bowling for Columbine,” with Moore revisiting the film to accuse American gun-owners of being motivated by racial fears.

Gun ownership, Moore said, “cuts down to the heart of our race problem that we still haven’t resolved.”

“I think we’re a very frightened people,” Moore said. “I think we’ve been frightened ever since we landed on these shores.

Skip

But according to Moore, it’s that fear that causes Americans want to own gun, which he tied to race by explaining high levels of citizen gun ownership exist “in suburbs and rural areas.” {Read More}

The dude is just,.... I'll leave it for the readership to fill in that blank.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

With the debate on where the nation goes from here on gun control Mayor Bloomberg strikes a somewhat reasonable stance. Neither side of the debate is likely to agree fully. However, the Mayor is at least sensible and that should provide a reasonable starting point. Given the current mood of the nation there is little doubt but what something is going to change with respect to gun laws.

CBS - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg today placed partial blame on the National Rifle Association for the Connecticut elementary school massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down last week.

"We're not trying to take away your right to advance the interests of gun owners, hunters, people who want to protect themselves," Bloomberg told "Nightline" anchor Cynthia McFadden in an interview today. "But that's not an absolute right to encourage behavior which causes things like Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut is because of some of their actions."

In the days after the massacre, the NRA has remained silent, only speaking up Wednesday to announce it would hold a press conference on Friday morning. But in the meantime, people with various stances on guns, from stark anti-gun advocates to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., a pro-gun politician who famously shot a cap-and-trade bill with a rifle in his 2010 re-election ad, are clamoring for something to be done.

"I think the public has finally come to the conclusion that, what the Supreme Court said you can do is have reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, is something that our society finally has woken up and said, 'We are going to do this whether you like it or not,'" Bloomberg said.

In 2007, Bloomberg was one of 50 mayors who gathered in Washington, D.C., to demand that Congress eliminate a law that restricts the ability of local police to trace criminals' weapons. At the time, gun advocates claimed the law, which was an amendment attached to the House appropriations bill in 2003, infringed on their Second Amendment rights. {Read More}

A firm believer in the right to responsibly own firearms, although I haven't owned in years since giving up hunting and target shooting, I must acknowledge that as a nation we need to continue to insure the right to bear while at the same time increase the safety of our people in regards to gun violence thus reducing the number of deaths caused by gunfire. This should be our goal

The Weekly Standard - Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, made his "fiscal cliff" position clear in a press conference today. "We are not going to do anything," said Reid.

Reid added, "We are not taking up anything they are working on over there."

The top Democrat in the Senate was explaining his inaction on the House plan, the proposal put forward by Republican John Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives. Boehner's plan is being referred to as 'Plan B.' {Read More}

But as there always is two sides, maybe this is a small part of the problem?

Politico - Speaker John Boehner, using his harshest tone of the fiscal cliff debate, said the White House has “done nothing” since he relented on letting low tax rates lapse on wealthy Americans.

“For weeks the White House said if I moved on rates, that they would make substantial concessions on spending cuts and entitlement reform,” Boehner said in an afternoon news conference. “I did my part, they’ve done nothing.” {Read More}

As I see it NEITHER side is serious about negotiations. What is being bantered about amounts to meager adjustments and cuts over a ten year period. Meager against a 16 plus trillion dollar national dept anyway.

Until BOTH sides get serious about actually doing something of significance, and yes, that means defense cuts, domestic spending cuts, and, here it comes, simplifying the tax code and establishing rates that based on the simplified tax code results in increasing revenue flowing to the treasury.

Taxing the wealthy and business until all incentive to do business is removed makes no sense. Most intelligent people, although not all, understand this. However, getting rid of tax loopholes used by the wealthy actually does make a lot of sense. This combined with a lower rate would increase revenues flowing to the treasury from the wealthy.

Either the two intransigent sides get serious, work out a compromise that is both meaningful and workable, or I say lets all go over the cliff together pointing fingers all the way to the bottom. Because folks, at the end of the day, both political parties will bear responsibility. Not that this fact will ease the pain the nation will experience.

Oh, almost forgot. Kicking the can down the road only passes the inevitable off for another day.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced,
the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.

People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero , 55 BC

Indeed. Evidently we have learned nothing in the past 2,067 years.

It has often been said, "The more things change the more they same the same." Apparently it is true.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Connecticut State Police walk near the scene of an elementary school shooting on Dec. 14, 2012 in Newtown, Conn. (credit: Douglas Healey/Getty Images)

Today, in Newtown Connecticut an act of unspeakable violence against innocent children occurred. As unfathomable as this act was it occured.

As I sat numbed by the realization such a grotesque and deranged act could actually occur, I could not help but to contemplate what it is that would drive a 20 year old individual to commit such a heinous crime against innocent children.

Having a 4 year old grandson and a 1 and a 1/2 year old old granddaughter the events of today hit very close to home. My heart, as well as that of Mrs. Rational Nation goes out to the parents and families who lost loved ones in today's tragic shooting.

Now is the time for all Americans to come together in mourning the loss of innocent young lives. After the grieving we must look for answers as to how we may, as a civilized people prevent future occurrences of such horrific violence against the innocent.

There are those who will use the tragedy of today to further their political agenda. Such politicizing of today's tragedy is despicable and deserving of the strongest condemnation. Rational Nation USA urges all conservative and libertarian site to join me in vocal condemnation of such naked political whoring of today's tragic events.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Of interest no doubt to the Star Wars enthusiast. However, quite far fetched. For now anyway. Or is it?

THE FW - On the White House’s website there is a “We The People” section, which allows citizens to “petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country.” If any submitted petition gets 25,000 E-signatures, then the White House will review the proposal.

Our favorite of these petitions this month has to be from Colorado man “John D” who, as we reported last week, wants the government to secure resources and funding to begin the construction of a Death Star by 2016.

His rationale for building the mega-weapon from the ‘Star Wars‘ movies is as much public works project than direct threat to the little green men who could be living below Mars’ surface.

“By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense,” he writes.

So far, the petition has over 19,000 signatures. However, the fun ends on December 14 so ‘Star Wars’ fans and folks who have ‘Independence Day’-related nightmares need to log on and sign on immediately.

If the petition does hit 25,000 it is going to pose a problem for the Obama Administration. While having a Death Star would be undeniably awesome, the costs of building one are probably prohibitive. According a recent study it would cost $852,000,000,000,000,000 — or 13,000 times the world’s GDP — just to produce the steel required to build the weapon.

With the President's enthusiasm for drones, and with the mega ton cost it just may be of interest to this President. ;-)

Yep, certainly everyone should be able to agree on the need to offset the cost of Sandy's devastation to the federal budget. As well, everyone should be able to see the logic of the states effected shouldering a share of the burden of cost.

THE HILL -
House conservatives are wasting no time in demanding that emergency spending for Hurricane Sandy be offset by spending cuts to the rest of the budget.

The White House on Friday requested Congress to pass a $60.4 billion bill to pay for damage resulting from Sandy.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders have so far been mum on whether they will demand spending cuts to match.

The right wing members of the House conference are not waiting to make their feelings known.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee, said she will need to see offsets on Wednesday as did Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho).

“We have these emergencies every year and we should prepare for that in our budget,” Labrador said.

“No pun intended, we should have a rainy day fund,” Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) said.

The August 2011 debt deal allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief fund to have up to $11 billion this year in extra funds for a disaster, but this money is not enough for the historic damage cause by Sandy according to the governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he will be looking for offsets for at least some of the spending and indicated he is not comfortable with the White House request that state and local governments contribute less than 25 percent of the cost of repairs. {Read More}

NBC/WSJ poll: GOP already goes off one cliff -- the image cliff… American public: We want compromise… But this also presents dilemma for White House: Does it bend over backwards to achieve compromise, or does it try to make the GOP cry “Uncle”?... Who gets the blame if the country goes over the cliff? Answer: Both sides… But Obama and the Democrats also have the upper hand… The other big news from our poll: Majority, for the first time, supports gay marriage… {First Thoughts - NBC}

Maybe the President and Congress will finally listen? I'm linking it unlikely.

Those among us that lean towards a reasonable fiscal conservatism and a libertarian social agenda have seen this coming for quite some time. rEpublicans (many are members of the Tea Party) decided after the 2010 mid term elections that compromise on debt and budgetary matters was a dirty concept. The agenda was to stare down the President and dEmocrat party. The rEpublicans obviously believed, erroneously as it turned out, the public was in majority force behind them. We all know where the socons stand on social issues, back a couple hundred years or so.

dEmocrats while offering some compromises the reality is for the most part they were designed to result in the rEpublicans not accepting them. President Obama, after establishing a "commission" to find alternatives and make recommendations pretty much ignored the advice of those he appointed. However, on the social issue side they offered a welcome counter to the socons of the rEpublican party.

The general public, including a majority of rEpublicans polled hold a negative view of the party of the Elephant. Some very telling (and top) comments used to describe the rEpublicans in Congress are; "“Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized”. If the party really doesn't desire achieving complete and total irrelevancy the leadership might want to start listening a tad better.

Being a fiscal conservative of the reasonable sort, and libertarian on social issue I say the rEpublicans ought to give the President and the dEmocrats precisely what they want. Let the spend thrift dEmocrat Keynesian statists (not at all unlike the rEpublican spend thrift statists) have the day. This way the responsibility for a collapse, should it occur will rest fully with them. The other side of the token of course is that if their plan is a resounding success they will reap all the accolades.

Here's how I see it bottom line. What we've got ain't working. What we had, at least in part, led to our current situation. So, at least in this individuals never humble opinion letting the dEmocrat Keynesian bureaucrats now in power call the shots seems reasonable. After all in four years the country will have the opportunity to grade the results and pass judgment. This time based SOLELY on the current administration and dEmocrat policy and agenda. I can't think of anything more fitting.

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower - *** GOP goes off the image cliff: The clock is ticking over whether President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner can avoid going over the so-called fiscal cliff at the beginning of next year. But our new NBC/WSJ poll shows that the Republican Party has already gone off one cliff, per co-pollster Peter Hart (D) -- the image cliff. The GOP’s fav/unfav rating in the poll now stands at 30%/45% (minus-15), which is down from 36%/43% (minus-7) right before the election. That’s compared with the Democratic Party’s 44%/35% rating (plus-9). And other than self-described Republicans and conservatives, just two other groups have a net positive view of the GOP: folks who live in rural America (39%/33%) and folks who live in the South (39%/38%), that’s it. What’s more, asked to give a word or short phrase to describe the Republican Party, 65% offered a negative comment, including MORE THAN HALF of Republicans. The top responses: “Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.” By contrast, 37% gave negative descriptions of the Democratic Party, while 35% were positive. A Republican politician or operative might look at our poll and say, “Well, the good news is that our numbers can’t get any lower.” That might be true, and they could very well drag Democrats down with them if there isn’t a deal. But there’s another way to look at the poll: Republicans have a lot to gain, too. And if they want to be a competitive national party again and not simply a regional, rural party, they need to make gains.

*** The American public: We want compromise: The reason they have a lot to gain is that the American public -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike -- wants compromise. According to the poll, two-thirds of respondents (67%) are willing to accept an increase in taxes or cuts in federal government programs they care about to reach an agreement to avoid the problem. What’s more, a whopping 76% say it would be acceptable increasing taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 to avoid the cliff, and that includes 61% of Republican respondents. Indeed, for the first time in our poll, a majority of Republicans (59%) say they want GOP leaders to make compromises to gain consensus in the current budget debate. Previously, in 2011, majorities of Republicans said they preferred GOP leaders to stick to their positions rather than make compromises. And the percentage of Democrats who favor compromise on this question (70%) is now at an all-time high in the survey.

*** Does the White House seek compromise -- or total victory? But these numbers present the Obama White House with a dilemma: How does it proceed during what looks like a stalemate right now in the budget negotiations? Does it bend over backwards with Boehner and House Republicans just to get a deal, even if it gives up much of the leverage it has with the Bush-era tax cuts and after last month’s presidential election? Or does it -- as some Democrats and many progressives are urging -- hold fast and be willing to go off the cliff to break the Republican Party and make it cry, “Uncle”? This is a tricky situation for the White House, because there is every chance that we simply go from fiscal cliff to other fiscal cliff over the next few years, and that could end up being politically painful for the White House and could mean the hope of getting OTHER legislative accomplishments in 2013 remote (think immigration or energy or education). {Read More}

Sunday, December 9, 2012

It appears more rEpublicans are either A) acquiescing to the Obama and democrat push for an increase in the tax rate for those making over $250,000.00 per year, or B) the rEpublicans are actually learning how to effectively negotiate and perhaps out maneuver the democrats long term. We'll just have to wait and see.

THE HILL - Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Sunday joined a growing chorus of Republicans who are open to higher tax rates for the richest Americans as part of a deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

Corker, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” that Democrats have the upper hand following the election. He said he was optimistic Congress would strike a deal within the next 23 days, even if it means agreeing to President Obama's plan to increase the top rate on individuals making more than $250,000 a year.

But Corker said he expected Democrats to accept spending cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare.

“A lot of people are putting forth a theory – and I actually think it has merit – where you go and you give the president the 2 percent increase that he's talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent – and all of a sudden the shift goes back to entitlements,” Corker said. “And all of a sudden, once you give him a top rate on the 2 percent it's actually a much lesser tax increase than what he's been talking about.

“I actually am beginning to believe that is the best route for us to take,” Corker said, “to again shift the focus to where it needs to be, which is entitlements.”

The Republican-led House, however, is reluctant to agree to Obama’s demand for higher tax rates on the wealthy. This past week, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) proposed raising $800 billion – half what the president wants – by limiting tax breaks, an offer the White House immediately dismissed.

Corker predicted that Republicans would gain the upper hand in future negotiations if they can prevent the tax hikes and spending cuts that are set to kick in on January 1. ... {Read More}

Is the following a voice of reason by Representative Cole (R-Okal.), or is it a voice for further statism and federal control of the individual's right to retain a larger share of their personal property? Dialogue begins just prior to the one minute mark in CNN video following excerpt.

THE HILL -... “So just let’s make sure for the 98 percent, they know they’re not. We can continue to fight on the other two percent and the higher rates,” Cole said.

The Oklahoma Republican said this would swing leverage over to Republicans in their negotiations with the White House to avoid going over the “fiscal cliff” — a set of massive tax increases and budget cuts that will go into effect early next year unless Congress acts.

“It’s quite the opposite. We gain leverage,” Cole said.

Not everyone is on board with Cole’s suggestion though within the House Republican caucus. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said the election results show that tax increases are not what voters wanted.

“We won the House,” Blackburn said, appearing with Cole on CNN. “The American people have clearly said we don’t want our taxes to go up.”

The Tennessee Republican said she doesn’t see support for tax rates going up among House Republicans. That said, they are more open to tax reform that could bring in new tax revenue.

“I’m not sure there’s support for the rate hikes. There is support for revenue by cleaning up the code,” Blackburn said.

Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) has proposed bringing in $800 billion in new tax revenue by likely capping or eliminating tax deductions. Cole said Boehner is on the right path but that compromise is on the cards.

“We are not getting 100 percent of what we want, but we can get a lot. John Boehner is trying to focus us where it belongs, and that’s on spending restraint and entitlement reform because this revenue won’t come close to dealing with our fiscal problems,” Cole said. ... {Read More}

Treating all fellow human beings that mean you no harm, and do not threaten you or your families livelihood and well being are deserving of respect and full equal treatment under the laws of the United States of America. Including the full recognition of equal rights for gay couples to marry and enjoy the same secular rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

America's belief in equality with respect to treatment of homosexuals, specifically their right to marry is, and has been changing. A plurality now support gay marriage.

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll found 40 percent of those surveyed said that same-sex couples should be able to be legally married. Thirty percent thought same-sex couples should be able to enter into civil unions but not be allowed to get married. And 24 percent said they should not be allowed to have any type of legal union.

The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted Dec. 2-6, just before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Friday announcement that the justices will consider two same-sex marriage cases. The full poll results will be released Monday.

One in five surveyed admitted to changing their view on same-sex marriage in the last few years, as President Barack Obama said he did earlier this year.

The generational gap on the gay marriage question persists. Younger people, who tend to view this as a civil rights issue, overwhelmingly supported gay marriage. A full 63 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds backed marriage, and only 14 percent wanted no legal unions for gay couples. It dropped off to 36 percent support among both 30-to-44-year-olds and 45-to-59-year-olds.

Only three in 10 seniors supported gay marriage. Another three in 10 supported civil unions. And 28 percent wanted no legal unions.

Predictably, the country divided along political party lines. Among Republicans, 40 supported percent civil unions and 37 percent didn’t support any legal unions. Just 17 percent of the GOP accepted legal marriage. Among Democrats, 60 percent supported legal marriage and 19 percent backed civil unions. This left 16 percent opposing legal recognition.

And so, once again we see the concept of individual rights and the application of equality under the secular laws of the United States of America being resisted by the Socon Evangelicals that would have all live by their interpretation of the scriptures. One can not help but wonder from where our greatest threat to liberty lies. Is there any difference between this and Muslim Theocracy? Just asking...

Friday, December 7, 2012

More federal power statism being exerted into the role that many believe ought to be reserved for the "Several States." I find myself thinking on just how the rEpublican right, and the social conservatives, both whom should support Washington and Colorado on this will ultimately come down.

WASHINGTON — Senior White House and Justice Department officials are considering plans for legal action against Colorado and Washington that could undermine voter-approved initiatives to legalize the recreational use of marijuana in those states, according to several people familiar with the deliberations.

Even as marijuana legalization supporters are celebrating their victories in the two states, the Obama administration has been holding high-level meetings since the election to debate the response of federal law enforcement agencies to the decriminalization efforts.

Marijuana use in both states continues to be illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. One option is to sue the states on the grounds that any effort to regulate marijuana is pre-empted by federal law. Should the Justice Department prevail, it would raise the possibility of striking down the entire initiatives on the theory that voters would not have approved legalizing the drug without tight regulations and licensing similar to controls on hard alcohol.

Some law enforcement officials, alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly, are said to be pushing for a stern response. But such a response would raise political complications for President Obama because marijuana legalization is popular among liberal Democrats who just turned out to re-elect him.

“It’s a sticky wicket for Obama,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Austin, saying any aggressive move on such a high-profile question would be seen as “a slap in the face to his base right after they’ve just handed him a chance to realize his presidential dreams.”

Federal officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. Several cautioned that the issue had raised complex legal and policy considerations — including enforcement priorities, litigation strategy and the impact of international antidrug treaties — that remain unresolved, and that no decision was imminent.

The Obama administration declined to comment on the deliberations, but pointed to a statement the Justice Department issued on Wednesday — the day before the initiative took effect in Washington — in the name of the United States attorney in Seattle, Jenny A. Durkan. She warned Washington residents that the drug remained illegal.

“In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance,” she said. “Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6 in Washington State, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.”

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Marco Rubio when asked if homosexuality is a sin handled the question like a real professional politician. While saying his faith considers it a sin he went on to say there are a whole bunch of other sins as well. I guess an affirmative but without actually saying the words "I consider it a sin", or answering simply "yes." He added that from a policy position while his faith informs him on decisions he doesn't go around pointing fingers.

... "I can tell you what faith teaches, and faith teaches that it is. And that's what the Bible teaches ... but it also teaches that there are a bunch of other sins that are no less. It teaches that lying is a sin, it teaches that disrespecting your parents is a sin, it teaches that stealing is a sin, it teaches that coveting your neighbor and what your neighbor has is a sin," Rubio said. "So, there isn't a person in this room that isn't guilty of sin. I don't go around pointing fingers in that regard."

On a personal level, he said, "I'm responsible for my salvation, and I'm responsible for my family's and for inculcating in my family what our faith teaches. And then they'll become adults and decide how they want to apply that in life."

Regarding his choices as a lawmaker or, presumably, candidate for other office, Rubio said, "As a policymaker, I can just tell you that I'm informed by my faith and my faith informs me in who I am as a person. But not as a way to pass judgment on people."

Rubio, who gave a speech at this year's Republican National Convention on the same night Mitt Romney accepted his party's nomination, often is considered a possible contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination — giving his remarks further importance than they might otherwise have.

Rubio has a mixed voting record on LGBT issues in his short time in Congress, having received a 47% ranking from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights group, in this Congress. Beyond his votes, he has opposed same-sex couples' marriage rights and recently recorded a call in support of the National Organization for Marriage's election efforts in 2012.

Of his Wednesday comments, though, HRC Vice President for Communications Fred Sainz said, "It's a shame that Senator Rubio falls outside the mainstream of the majority of people of faith who view supporting equality for LGBT people as an extension of their faith. ... {Read More}

It would have been refreshing if Rubio had simply said no and let it go at that. But of course preserving the support of the socons is all important in a rEpublican party that seems sometime to be informed more by faith than by reality or reason.

Bill Clinton is urging the "faithful" not to be too discouraged with what they see going on in inept Washington DC as discussions continue in an attempt to broker a deal between rEpublicans and dEmocrats to avert the fiscal cliff. During his lecture session he played coy as to whether Hillary would make another run for the "Crown" in 2016.

The Hill - Former President Bill Clinton sought to strike a comforting tone Wednesday, telling a lecture audience they shouldn't "get too disgusted" by ongoing budget negotiations in Washington.

"Don't get too disgusted by what you see — they're doing a little dance now," Clinton said, equating the two sides to sumo wrestlers circling one another in the ring. "I'll be very surprised if they don't do a reasonably acceptable deal."

The president made the remarks, reported by the San Jose Mercury News, at De Anza College's Flint Center as part of the 45th Annual Celebrity Forum Speakers Series.

Clinton said a deal would be struck, but that it must include Republicans allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire.

Clinton was also asked about the odds his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would make a presidential bid of her own in 2016. Clinton called his wife "the most gifted person in public service in my generation," but played coy about a possible bid.

"If I did know, I wouldn't tell you," he said.

My prediction on both... Congress and the President ultimately agree on a deal that continues to kick the can done the road thus passing the problem to a different administration and Congress to resolve... Hillary is most certainly putting on her running shoes. Oy Vey!

Monday, December 3, 2012

The liberals/progressives will have fun with this one. Gear up for the future scorched earth politics. Coming to America compliments of the rEpublican (and dEmocrat no doubt as well) party. Pull up a seat, grab a cold one and enjoy! You're looking at the future.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Another son of Massachusetts who went on to be the leader of the free world. President John F. Kennedy was both inspiring and forward thinking. His vision to put a man on the moon before 1970 motivated a nation to move science and technology beyond what was perhaps considered possible or even necessary at the time. Individuals like JFK challenge the norm, push to achieve new goals and heights for mankind (humankind for the PC sensitive), and challenge us all to move forward and acheive our highest potential as human beings.

JFK on religious freedom and the separation of church and state. His remarks begin at approximately the 2 minute and 30 second mark.

Perhaps the rEpublican party, especially the socon religious right should listen to and learn from words and example of JFK, a devout Roman Catholic.

As the nation struggles with diverse and often divisive factions and varying ideological principles/beliefs, it would do well to consider the struggle (and views) of those that came before us. Our forebears were, after all, responsible for galvanizing folks around principles that spawned the greatest political and governmental experiment mankind (for the PC sensitive humankind) has ever witnessed. Note that all points of emphasis are mine.

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. {Read More}

One simply can't help but wonder at the 21st century rEpublicans and how far they are removed from the reality of their own absurdities. I don't know, maybe it's the socon neocon and anti science connection. Whatever it is the party need some new blood and an infusion of reality.

TPM - House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that Congress will not give up control over the nation's debt limit and that each time the limit is raised, Congress will demand cuts and reforms, during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

Congress is never going to give up this power. I've made it clear to the president that every time we get to the debt limit, we need cuts and reforms that are greater than the increase in the debt limit. It's the only way to leverage the political process to produce more change than what it would if left alone.

Adam Smith -vs- Ayn Rand. Capitalism was their common goal, the justification for achieving the ends of capitalism was their difference.

Based on pure logic and objectiveness Smith would have to concede to Rand.

Looking beyond the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, and post Soviet/Chinese/Southeast Asian communism, the debate is once again forefront and center.

Given the changing realities of modern western society how would you characterize capitalism today and what specifically would you suggest we ought modify or do differently?

For a insightful yet brief analysis of Smith and how his views might relate to the present please see taospeaks as you consider the foregoing.

There remains one thing abundantly clear. We as humans have yet to agree on the ultimate right solution. This is as it should be. Knowledge, growth, and ultimately achievement is NOT made by everyone always agreeing. Wouldn't you agree?